This is where I come in. Until recently I hadn't put all of the pieces together either.

Louisiana is a mandatory insurance State. Again, it's easy to screw someone else over when you believe that you will be immune and can even save yourself some money by forcing those damned poor people to pay too. In fact, that is the problem with a democracy. As long as you can convince more than half of the people to screw over their neighbor, you can screw over everyone eventually.

Mandatory insurance is slavery. I will prove it to you shortly.

In Louisiana, in order to get a vehicle inspection sticker on a vehicle you must sign a form that says that you promise, under penalty of perjury, that you will maintain motor vehicle insurance.

One day I decided that I would not sign such a statement, and they couldn't make me. I was right and I was wrong.

Obviously, if you don't sign the paper, they don't give you an inspection sticker. Soon, my license plate had expired and sure enough, there on the renewal form was the same kind of statement. I refused to sign the paper, and my license plate expired. Soon, my driver's license would expire too.

During this time I had maintained motor vehicle insurance. As fate would have it, by a clerical error on my part, I was tardy in sending in my insurance payment. I mailed the payment on the day after the date they said that they would cancel my insurance, and my insurance was canceled. It was during this time that I was stopped by a policeman. The policeman started writing me tickets for the expired documentation. When he found out that my insurance had been canceled he took the expired license plate off of the vehicle and called a tow wagon and towed the car off.

There I was, with my daughter, stranded on the side of the road. There was no due process of Law. The vehicle was taken literally from under our butts and we were stranded on the side of the road. This is the beginning of the pieces coming together.

There is an old adage that says that if they can take it from you, you don't own it. I realized, with my daughter and I stranded on the side of the road, that I don't own that vehicle. The papers I had said I owned the vehicle. Even the withdrawal of registration and wrecker request did say that I owned the vehicle. Yet, without due process of law, it was just taken. I must not own this vehicle.

Well, I had the court date I wanted. The tickets supplied that. It was time to prepare and find out just who owns this vehicle.

It took me a long time to find it. Actually it didn't take me long to find the right place. What took the time was realizing that it was the right place. This is Law. There is a paper trail somewhere. Remember, we even had to have a paper trail on the land we stole from England.

It turns out that the State of Louisiana has mortgaged every device by which people and property can be transported on the public roads and bridges and had an admiralty lien on the vehicles. In short, they own all vehicles, including bicycles and ridden animals. They are, in effect, allowing you to use their vehicle as long as you follow their rules and insure their vehicle. They can take their vehicle back anytime they want or they can just forbid you to use their vehicle. They can even stop you on the side of the road to make sure that you have permission to use their vehicle and are using it properly. If not they can take your money, your vehicle and even put you in jail.

Sounds bizarre doesn't it. I can and will prove to you that this is true. In Louisiana it can be found in Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution. The brief in support of the position that Article VII Section 5 is unconstitutional is a full translation of Article VII section 5 using no more than a legal dictionary. It is called the Motor Vehicle License Tax. You will see that when it is fully translated from legalese what it actually is. It is not a tax on motor vehicles. It is a tax on the license (the permission) to use the State's motor vehicle.

Don't believe that just because this is Louisiana, corruption is expected. If you have a driver's license, it has happened to you.

Who is there to complain. Remember Hans? He wasn't allowed to go into court to force the State of Louisiana to give him back his property, at least not without the thief's permission. At this time I didn't know about Hans. I didn't even know about the Slaughterhouse Cases. It was during preparation for my upcoming arraignment that I stumbled over the Supreme Law Firm and was introduced to the Slaughterhouse Cases and Scott v. Sandford. It was there that I found out about the two classes of citizenship. All I had to do was read the two cases to know that the Supreme Law firm was right.

Barrister's Inn was so close. However, they had taught me that you go into court with paper work that says; "Comes now into court ___________, a citizen of the United States." I didn't believe them. I went and looked it up. There is a law book called a formulary. It shows you the form for every kind of action you might want to file. The formulary also said: " Comes now into court __________, a citizen of the United States." If what the United States Supreme Court told me in the Slaughterhouse cases was correct, then I was shooting myself in the foot. I was going into court and telling the judge that I am an African American with virtually no rights. Remember the butchers? If you claim to be a freed slave, we will treat you like one.

The arraignment date came. I went into court with a prepared statement that said: " Comes now into court me --, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana."

Now, I hadn't been in a traffic court for some years. Was I surprised to find out that you could no longer file paperwork before an arraignment. It was obvious to me that things had gotten worse. Undaunted, I was going to file my prepared statement in open court.

I went into the arraignment and told the judge that I wanted to file my prepared statement in open court. He took it from me and read less than the first page and then asked me to tell him the basics of my claim. I explained to him that Article VII section 5 of the State Constitution was illegal and why. What he did then was a complete surprise as I had never seen it happen before in all of my times in court. The judge handed me back the paperwork and told me that I would have to take my complaint to a different court. This was not a constitutional court. I asked him into which court I should take this. He just shrugged. He then refused to discuss the matter with me any further. I left the court room. There was no not guilty plea entered on my behalf. There was no date set for me to return to court.

Just as a side note, when a judge shrugs, it is usually because he doesn't want his words to be recorded on the court reporters record.

I must confess, I was confused. I knew that I had done something right, but, at the time, I wasn't quite sure of exactly what. Was it the claim that I was a Citizen of the State of Louisiana or was it the claim that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution was unconstitutional. Or, was it both claims that had turned the tide? I did, however, learn two important things. First, the judge had said that this was not a Constitutional court. The second thing was that I needed to bring my claim to another court. But which court?

I went home to ponder the situation. I called a retired civil court judge that I know and asked him. He told me that he didn't know what court I should take my claim. This struck me as extremely odd. Here is a retired judge with a doctorate in law and he can't tell me which court I should take my claim. I knew that the traffic court judge knew but obviously wouldn't say. Was the Civil court judge incompetent or was he just not telling? I didn't know. Considering what had happened, I did the only thing that I could do, I started digging through the law library.

As I was digging through the law library I realized that I couldn't find one reported case in which anyone claimed to be a Citizen of any State. Nor, could I find a single case in which a right of a citizen of the United States was not claimed. Remember the Slaughterhouse cases. The butchers had lost there case because their incompetent lawyer had claimed them to be an African American by claiming a right under the fourteenth amendment. They were going to be treated as African Americans, whether they were one or not.

I did find out that the Slaughterhouse Cases had never been overruled. I found out that the Dred Scott case had been overruled, but I knew that already. The Slaughterhouse cases had told me that, plus, it was obvious. African Americans were now citizens of the United States and now had some rights. They now could be citizens of something.

Whenever I looked for an action in court, I kept coming across the same statement. Unless the party is a State. It turns out that the correct court to go to is the United States Supreme Court under Article III of the Constitution. This is where a King takes his property managers to task. But, you must be a King. For a citizen of the United States, a freed slave, there is no place to go. Remember Hans? The Supreme Court told him that he shouldn't have trusted the word of the invading army in control of the State.

This went on for more than two years. Every so often I would take a trip to the law library or I would search the Internet looking for my answer. I was still traveling in my vehicle. My inspection sticker was still expired. My license plate had been taken so there was none on the vehicle. My registration had been revoked. My insurance had never been reinstated and now my driver's license had expired too.

During that time I had been stopped by a couple of policemen. One did let me go when I told him my story. He just took my name and address and we both went on our merry way. One officer was a State Policeman. This is the only time I had a witness in the vehicle with me. The State policeman had been in a well known hiding place and began to come after me when he saw that I wasn't wearing a seat belt. Daddy's going to spank me for being a bad slave. Excuse me, subject. When the policeman pulled me over my friend was sure that I was going to jail. I told the State policeman my story. I told him that I was traveling as a matter of right and not driving as a matter of privilege and hence, I did not need a driver's license, registration, proof of insurance or a license plate. To my friends amazement, the policeman wrote me a few tickets and we all went on our merry way.

Well, now I am being forced into court again. Let's see what I can learn this time. Little did I know that fate had a different plan for me.

Before my new court date came up, I decided to start my Christmas shopping. This was on the twenty-first day of December, 2006. As I was pulling into the parking lot of a well known toy store a policeman followed me and turned on his lights. I found a parking place in the toy store parking lot and pulled into it. The policeman stopped behind my vehicle and we both got out to chat.

He told me that I did not have a license plate and asked me for other documentation. I told him who I was and that I did not have any of the documents he wanted. He went back to his car and came back and told me that there was an attachment out on me and that I was going to be arrested. He also told me that he was going to have my vehicle towed off. After some small bit of time, sure enough my vehicle was towed and I was on my way to jail. More complete details of just what happened can be found in my complaint to the Internal affairs department of the police department.

Maybe it is different where you are, but in Louisiana jail is one of the most dehumanizing and nasty things you can imagine. It is not like you see in the old movies with people having cigarettes and matches on them and pulling a harmonica out of their pocket. You are not treated as an innocent person being held to prevent escape until such time as you guilt or innocence can be proved. You would have thought that I was an ax murderer and not just a document violator. More complete details of my experiences in jail can be found in my complaint to the Internal Affairs department of the police department.

I knew my rights as a State Citizen and I kept demanding them. The Untied States Supreme Court has said that my finger prints are my property and that to compel their surrender was a violation of my fifth amendment right against self incrimination although, the exact site eluded me at the time and it is not crucial to the story at this time. Just for the record, I believe the case is Miranda v. Arizona, but don't hold me to it, I could be wrong.

There I was, in jail. The police would not release me until I gave them my finger prints and I refused to do that. Some fourteen hours later a prominent lawyer I knew found out that I was in jail and came to see me. He told me that I should just give them my finger prints and stop playing this silly game. I could always fight this in court and my continued stay in jail was not going to do anyone any good. So, under protest, I gave them my finger prints and let them take my picture. Sure enough, after about 30 minutes or so I was forced to sign bail agreements for each charge and was released. Unfortunately, my vehicle had been taken. I was now on the other side of the Mississippi River, about 20 miles from my home and the place where I was arrested and I was again stranded. The Lawyer that had come to find me had stayed around and gave me a ride home.

As you will see, these bail agreement would be extremely important in my continuing education.

My arraignment date was set and I was, again, preparing for it. I prepared the same written statement I had prepared before and I thought I was ready for the arraignment. I had even found someone to take me to the court. The last time my vehicle had been taken, I was able to pay the ransom and retrieve my vehicle. This time, the Department of Safety and Corrections did refuse to let me pay the ransom and retrieve my vehicle unless I got a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance, which I refused to do. After all, I couldn't go into court saying that I didn't need these documents if I went and got them. But, anyone that has ever gone into traffic court knows that they make it extremely time consuming and inconvenient to fight a case and easy just to pay up and shut up. I was not going to do that. I had my issues and I was going to do the right thing no matter how inconvenient that made it. I was going to fight my issues.

Well, this arraignment didn't go as well as the last one. I was fighting three cases this time and had another arraignment coming up. This time the judge did tell me that I was in contempt of court for not showing up for the last arraignment. You know the one where the judge virtually kicked me out of court and refused to discuss which court I should take my complaint to. I told the judge that he was wrong. I told him that I had appeared for the arraignment in that matter. I told him that a date for me to return to court had never been set. I also told him that the court's own records would bear me out. Well, he wasn't going to listen to any of that. I was guilty of contempt and that was just that. If what I said was true, then the attachment and arrest were illegal. We couldn't have any of that.

Then we went into the arraignment. I did, again, tell the judge that I was a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution was illegal and did try to enter into the record my prepared statement. This judge wouldn't hear any of it. To make a long story short, this arraignment went just like what I had been used to. Not guilty pleas were entered on my behalf on all charges and a trial date was set. Off I went to ponder these new developments. It was back to research for me.

It has always been a rule with me to try and climb as high in the court system as you can as fast as you can. I have found, from years of experience, that the law is more closely adhered to the higher in the court system you go. I believe that this is because the higher in the court system you go, the more people there are that are watching.

I was claiming that I was a Citizen of the United States. As such I have rights. Where was the grand jury indictment based on the oath of two witnesses. Call it a misdemeanor if you want, but, by law, this is an infamous crime that I am charger with. I am being charged with criminal trespass. A thief has stolen my vehicle as is trying to claim that I am trespassing on the vehicle he stole from me.

To make matters worse, I am also claiming that I own the vehicle in question. As the rightful owner of that vehicle, I had not violated any conditions of the owner of that vehicle. I was claiming that the State of Louisiana illegally stole the vehicle and that the Department of Safety and Corrections, exclusive overseer of the State's plantation, was knowingly enforcing an illegal lien.

It comes down to the simple question; who really owns this vehicle? If I own the vehicle than the army of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, overseer of the property of the King, had no right to stop me. The Overseer had no right to demand, under threat of arrest, that I appear in a court. The Overseer's army had no right to arrest me, and the overseer's minion had no right to pass judgment on me. Until you can prove that the vehicle really does belong to the State of Louisiana, there's not going to be a trial.

The issue is that I have violated the rules of the owner of the vehicle. That question can not be raised until it is decided who is the rightful owner of that vehicle. Then we can ask the question; Were any rules of the owner of the vehicle violated?

Since it is by article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution that all vehicles have been stolen, there must be a ruling on if article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is valid.

Do you remember the Dred Scott Story. The United States Supreme Court said that Congress could not force a Citizen of a State, a King, to give up his property when he went on his own land that Congress was managing for him. Property rights of the Kings must be protected. The law was illegal and shall be stricken as if it never was passed. Lawmakers do make illegal laws, but they are considered legal until someone complains. The United States Supreme Court taught me that you must ask if the law is valid. They taught me that in the Dred Scott case.

This is what I was doing. Sure the law says that the State owns the vehicle, but, the law is invalid. I really own that vehicle.

There are only two courts in the United States that have the power to rule on such an issue. One is the Louisiana Supreme Court and the other is the United States Supreme Court.

My research paid off. This time I found an answer. It was in Article V section 5 (D)(1) of the Louisiana State Constitution which says:

"(D) Appellate Jurisdiction. In addition to other appeals provided by this constitution, a case shall be appealable to the supreme court if (1) a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional..."

Well, Article V section 5 (D)(1) says that you can appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court if a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional. But, it doesn't say who has to declare the law or ordinance unconstitutional. Sometimes in law what isn't said is more important than what is said.

For those of you that don't understand law, the study of Law is nothing more the the study of the precision use of language. It says what it says. Nothing more or less. Well, the Louisiana Constitution just says that the law or ordinance has to be declared unconstitutional. It doesn't say by whom. I had declared Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution unconstitutional. Therefore, I had a right to appeal directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court and that is what I did. Who better to declare an article illegal but a King chastising his property managers.

We'll go into this appeal more later when I show you that the Louisiana State Supreme Court and the Clerk of that court committed fraud to try to silence me. Remember that I told you that the lawyers were actively hiding the information and that I could prove it. When I get into the appeal in depth I will prove it to you then. Right now I am still trying show you what actions I took and why.

I went to the Supreme Court with an appeal. I had also asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to put a stop to the proceedings until the Louisiana Supreme Court decided the issues (it's called a stay in legalese.) They didn't. Now I have a second arraignment coming up on similar charges on the same date as my trial. Now I have more digging to do. I know that I am on the right track, but things still don't make sense and I need to figure out why.

At this point I am still extremely ignorant. I don't know anything about Hans at this point. I am even so ignorant that I still believe that the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana is a Louisiana State Court.

Here comes my trial date and the second arraignment on similar charges. I still don't know why the Louisiana Supreme Court has not issued a stay. It is such a common practice and how can we have a trial on whether I violated the rules of the owner of the vehicle until we find out just who owns the vehicle.

Well, the Department of Safety and corrections is still holding my vehicle for ransom. I know now that the State of Louisiana claims to own the vehicle and I know that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, a corporation, is the sole agent for the State of Louisiana. I'll prove this as I go and it is contained in the appeal to the Louisiana State Supreme Court.

I also know that if the State of Louisiana wanted to try one of its Citizens the paperwork should say the People of the State of Louisiana versus me. Also, when the State is a party to a suit the United States Supreme Court is the only court to handle such an issue. So says Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Barrister's Inn had taught me most of this. Don't get me wrong. Barrister's Inn was wrong. They were close, but they were wrong. That doesn't mean that all of their information was bad. Had I not stood on their shoulders I wouldn't have been able to see so far. Trial and error has served the Patriot movement well for a long time. It is extremely costly, but it is the only method available short of Law school. Again, why isn't a knowledge of law common knowledge? It's because if you knew what they did, they wouldn't have gotten away with it this long.

During my research for the trial and new arraignment I stumbled upon some new information. The United States Supreme Court is not the only place that a State my sue in it's own name.

I found United States Code 1251, which, contrary to what the United States Constitution appears to say in Article III Section 2, says there is another way that a State can sue in its own name.

United States Code 1251 entitled Original Jurisdiction does say:

"(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens."

Let me read you section (b)(3) again.

The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: All actions or proceeding by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Remember Hans? The United States Supreme Court had told him that he could not sue the States without their permission and did cite the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution which also deals with citizens of another State and aliens. I didn't know about Hans at this time.

Remember the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases? There we found out that the butchers lost their case because they claimed to be African Americans and therefore not Citizens of a State but citizens of the United States.

At this point I didn't know about Hans. But I did know about the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases. The Slaughterhouse cases told us that the rights for a Citizen of a State, a King, are contained in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution up to the 11^th amendment. I wasn't going to make the same mistake that the Butchers made and claim a right of a freed slave.

Here, at least, was a reason that the State could attack me in their own name and not be in the United States Supreme Court. But what did that have to do with me? I was in a State Court. I was in the First Parish Court, Jefferson Parish, State of Louisiana. I almost missed it.

Literally minutes before a friend of mine was to take me to the trials and new arraignment I was gathering up my paperwork and documents to be ready to leave. I was deciding whether to take my release and bond papers with me when I noticed that the heading of the Appearance Bond papers mentioned a Federal Court Order. This is when it hit me. First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana was not a State court at all. It was a Federal Court.

In all of the years I had been fighting in court and a lot of it done in that very court, how could I have missed it? Is it true?

It was then that the true implications of what was going on started to dawn on me. I had found that the State of Louisiana, by illegal bill of credit forbidden in Article I section 10 of the United States Constitution,had stolen all vehicles, including bicycles and ridden animals by the imposition of an Admiralty lien. Article III section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that the federal government has jurisdiction over Admiralty cases. Therefore, the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana had to be a federal admiralty court and I had to be a Citizen of another State or an alien. What a revelation.

The pieces started to fall into place. Remember the first Arraignment when the judge told me I would have to find another court, handed me back my paperwork and refused to talk to me anymore? I had caught him by surprise. He knew that as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, he had no jurisdiction. I had to be a citizen of another State or an alien to fit under United States Code 1251.

Let me take a minute and explain jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the right to hear a case. Remember Dred Scott? The United States Supreme Court said that he was not a man, nor was he a member of our country, therefore he had no right to go into our courts. Our courts had no jurisdiction.

Think of jurisdiction as a stick with which they may beat you. In most courts it is assumed that the court has the stick and has a right to hold and use it. But, in a federal court, the attacker, the plaintiff, must prove that the court has a right to hold the stick called jurisdiction. The Supreme Court told us this in Dred Scott's case. In either case, if one party screams foul, than proof must be produced that the court has a right to stick its nose in your business. Without jurisdiction (the correct stick) they can't do anything to you, much less beat you. They don't have the correct stick. On any case, only one court can hold the stick at a time. It is their right and power to hear the case. The Untied States Supreme Court said that proceeding without jurisdiction was one of the worst errors that a court can commit.

If you were getting divorced and you found yourself in a traffic court. You could tell the judge that he is not empowered to hear a divorce case. He can only hear traffic cases. Therefore you are in the wrong court and he has no right to hear this case. He has no jurisdiction.

While we're at it, one other small clarification. The word is Parish. If you are anywhere but Louisiana translate Parish into County.

If you look at my paperwork carefully, I didn't actually claim a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana as the Slaughterhouse Cases demand. I had only laid claim to being a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, the bona fide residence is implied. Which, in legal terms should have made it a contested issue of Fact. Hence, it would be the prosecutions burden to prove that I was not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana but was in fact a Citizen of another State or an alien. Without that proof, the court has no jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court told us that in Dred Scott's case.

Back to the story. Remember as I am ready to leave for three trials and an arraignment I realized that the State is prosecuting a trespass against their ownership of the vehicle acquired by an admiralty lien. I just realized that Admiralty jurisdiction is a federal Jurisdiction and even though the court wall says Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana it is not a State court but a federal court and I must be a Citizen of another State or an alien.

I went to court and appeared before the judge. The judge told me that on motion of this court all proceedings would be stayed until the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled. See, I told you that it was easy and happened every day. But, then, why hadn't the Louisiana Supreme Court done that? I had to be right. The First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana was indeed a Federal Admiralty court and, hence, the Louisiana Supreme Court couldn't tell a Federal Court to stay anything.

I tested the theory further. I repeatedly asked the judge: In what jurisdiction am I standing? Is this an State of Federal Court? Is this an Admiralty proceeding in a Federal Court. Do you know that the judge wouldn't tell me although it is required by Law.

Well, at least the trials have been postponed until the Louisiana Supreme Court rules.

What they did next shocked me. They proceeded with the new Arraignment on virtually the exact same charges.

I had gone to the Louisiana Supreme Court on the three cases that they had just delayed (or stayed) claiming that I had done nothing wrong. The State of Louisiana did not own the vehicle, I owned the vehicle and as the owner of the vehicle I had not broken any of the rules of the owner of the vehicle and had not committed a trespass against the owner of the vehicle. I was traveling as a matter of right in my own personal property. You remember the very things that the State was created to protect and secure.

There is a Louisiana Revised Statute 32:25 that tells us that there is a right to travel and does state:

"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the owner of real property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel by permission of the owner, and not as a matter of right, from prohibiting such use, or from requiring other or different or additional conditions than those specified in this Chapter, or otherwise regulating such use as may seem best to such owner." La R.S. 32:25

This is why you go to traffic court in the first place. The State claims to own your car and you are using the car with the permission of the owner, The State. Surely you have heard people say that driving is a privileged. It is a privilege to use someone else's vehicle and the State, as owner, has the right to grant or revoke such privilege at whim. As the owner of the vehicle the State can prohibit such use and require additional conditions for the use of the State's vehicle as may seem best to the owner. In short, the owner of the vehicle could require you to get a driver's license, registration, proof of insurance and an inspection sticker for the vehicle or you can not use their vehicle. To violate any of the owners conditions is a trespass against the owner of the vehicle and subject to fine and imprisonment. I'll bet they didn't teach you that in Driver's ed.

Well, If I am the owner, I haven't violated any of the conditions of the owner in the use of the vehicle and I have done nothing wrong. And, until such time as the Louisiana Supreme Court does rule on who owns the vehicle how can you bring charges against me saying that I have violated the rules of the owner of the vehicle. But, this is what they were going to do with the new arraignment. I knew that this was a trap, but I still wasn't sure how the trap was supposed to work. They still had to get the appearance of jurisdiction and they were going to try again.

This is the way the trap works. I had claimed to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. As a Citizen of a State, traffic court, a federal admiralty court, has no jurisdiction. United States Code 1251 says that I have to be a Citizen of another State of an alien before a State can proceed in its own name and not the name of its people.

Well, if you appeal the decision of a traffic court, the normal course of appeal is to the District Court and then to the Court of Appeal. In this case it would be the 24^th Judicial District Court and the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana.

Well, if the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana is a federal admiralty court, then, obviously, the 24^th judicial District Court and the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana must also be federal courts. If you go to them with an appeal, you have just declared yourself to be a Citizen of another State or an Alien or you wouldn't have gone into the wrong court. Poof, they have jurisdiction. You just gave it to them.

I have made this mistake before, though I didn't know it then. Quite honestly, I had gotten lucky when I found that section of the Louisiana State Constitution that said that I could go directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court if someone declared a law or ordinance unconstitutional or I would have probably made the same mistake again. It is one of my rules to try to climb as high in the court system as you can as fast as you can. The law is more strictly adhered to in the higher courts. No, I don't believe it is because they are more honest or knowledgeable, I believe it is because more people are watching and that they can't get away with as much as easily. Also, since I am challenging a section of the State Constitution, only the Louisiana Supreme court has the power (the jurisdiction) to rule one way or the other. So, why waste my time with the lower courts.

You will see this trap again. We will go into it in more detail when I prove to you that the Louisiana Supreme Court committed fraud to keep this information secret.

You would be surprised just how many traps there are. In my new arraignment the judge even used the old "Do you understand the English language" ploy. Briefly, if a judge asks you that, the correct answer is no. If you say that you understand the English language it means that you understand all of the English Language including the legalese they will spout. Trust me, you're about to get screwed. You have just admitted that you understand all of what is being done to you. Remember the correct answer is no I do not understand the English Language. I only understand a small part of the English Language and I don't understand legalese.

The judge in this new arraignment tried everything he could think of to try to trap me into jurisdiction. Thankfully, he failed. Remember, this is the same judge that, just minutes before, had stayed the other cases and was now proceeding with a new arraignment.

In this new arraignment, I kept repeatedly asking the judge: In what jurisdiction am I standing? Is this a State of Federal Court? Is this an Admiralty proceeding in a Federal Court. Do you know that the judge still would not tell me although it is required by Law. But, at least, these new proceedings would have the record correctly set.

As expected, the judge did enter a not guilty plea on my behalf and set a trial date.

Well, now I have another chance to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and I did this one differently. We'll get more into this case latter. But, for right now, lets just continue with my first appeal.

There are soon going to be two appeals going on in the Louisiana Supreme Court. In fact, they are still going on unresolved. In order to differentiate between the two appeals I will start calling them by their docket numbers. The first case is on the Docket of the Louisiana Supreme Court as 2007-KH-131. It is the three cases that the Louisiana Supreme Court would not stay the proceedings because it couldn't. They have no power over a federal Admiralty court. These are the three cases the First Parish Court judge stayed on his own motion.

When I had filed the first appeal numbered 131, I still hadn't realized that the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana was a Federal Admiralty court. Hence, I had handled it as an appeal from a State court to the highest Court in the State. So, I had done a lot of complaining about the judge. This is, strictly speaking, a technical error. Why am I complaining about the actions of a federal judge to a State Supreme court? They can do nothing about it. They have no jurisdiction over a federal court or judge. Remember, this is why I claim that the Louisiana Supreme Court had not stayed the lower court. The federal court had to stay the proceedings on their own.

Let's learn from my mistake. In the first place, I had been learning law and fighting in courts for almost twenty five years. The people who taught me, Barrister's Inn, had been fighting in courts for many years before me. Why didn't I know that the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana is a Federal Court? The State of Louisiana was the Plaintiff or the attacker and I was the Defendant or the defender. Yet, in all of the countless hours of research that I had done, and in all of the countless hours of research done by the giants on whose shoulders I stood, how could such a basic piece of information have been missed? The judge knew that I was in a Federal Court. The judge knew that this was an admiralty proceeding. Why wouldn't he tell me? The lawyers know. Why doesn't everyone know?

It is the same reason that the basics of law are not taught in high school. If you knew what has happened to the rights of the people in this country, we wouldn't have stood for it. If you knew that the State had stolen your vehicle and was prosecuting you as an African American citizen of the United States there would have been changes made. There can be no doubt that it is the ignorance of law by all but the elite that keep this system in place. How else can you explain the fact that in all of your education in the government schools you didn't know that there are two types of citizenship in this country? Yet, when you read the Slaughterhouse cases, there can be no doubt.

Like I keep telling you, Barrister's Inn was so close. They knew that they were fighting an admiralty proceeding. They had just not put all of the pieces together correctly. Without a knowledge of the Slaughterhouse Cases and the knowledge that you are now just an African American, little better than a slave, the pieces just don't fit. Barrister's Inn believed that it was because they had lost their rights when they entered in contracts. They were right on that count. They went wrong because they did not know that for a citizen of the United States, little better than a slave, you must have the permission of the Government to do anything. Barrister's Inn had also missed the fact that the State claims to own the car. Is it any wonder that the basics of Law are not taught in school until the doctoral level? Stay with me, it gets worse as this proof unfolds.

Now, let's look at the good side of my mistake. I had believed that I had been in a State court, after all the court is called the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. There was no mention of federal nor admiralty anywhere to be found except on the Appearance bond. Hence, I had documented the abuses of the judge in these cases. The only other way I could have proved to you what happened in the court room was to obtain a transcript of the proceeding. I couldn't, and still can't obtain the transcript simply because I can't afford it.

Just for the record an admiralty flag has gold fringe. If you see an American flag with a gold fringe you can be pretty sure you are in federal jurisdiction.

This brings up another interesting point. Why are tape recorders forbidden in every court room I know of? The court reporter uses one to document the proceedings. If everything is fair, honest, and above board why do the courts demand that there be only one recording of the proceedings? Am I saying that the court reporters are corrupt. No. Am I saying that court reporters are corruptible? Yes. Remember Publius? Remember that he said: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's substance amounts to a power over his will." A court reporter is a highly paid profession that requires a license. Have you or do you know someone that has done something that they knew was wrong to keep their job? Have you ever heard of documents getting lost, shredded or forged to destroy or hide evidence?

Anyone who has fought their own case knows that it is almost impossible to keep accurate notes and fight a case simultaneously. It is my practice to return home after a court appearance and type up everything that I can remember about what happened while it is fresh in my mind. Even then it is somewhat shoddy at best. How easy thing would be if I could pull out a tape recorded and place it in front of me and record everything that went on. It would even be better if I could take that tape recorder and connect it to the court reporters equipment and get the recording straight off of the microphones in front of all of the participants. Why can't you take notes in the easiest and most efficient means available by modern technology just as the court reporter does? Surely no one has anything to hide. Or do they?

If you are following along with me, the question that must come up is: Maybe I have misrepresented the events in my appeals. It is possible. I could be lying to you and the courts.

Every court paper that you submit must be certified, by the person submitting that document, that the information contained therein is true and correct. To commit such a fraud is perjury. Perjury is a felony. I believe the penalty is six years in jail, but I could be wrong on the exact penalty. The court has a tape recording and would love to shut me up. To misrepresent the facts would not be in my interest and would be too easy for the court to prove. Whether I am an honorable person or not, you don't know, but, I am not a stupid person. To perjure myself in the court papers when the court I am complaining about has a tape recording of what happened would be stupid.

The core issue was correct though. The State of Louisiana had illegally stolen my vehicle. If I did, in fact, own the vehicle, then I had not violated any of the rules of the owner of the vehicle and there were no legitimate charges against me. This is an issue that only the Louisiana Supreme Court could rule on. The federal courts could not rule on the constitutionality of Louisiana State Constitution. In fact the only federal court that could rule on this issue is the United States Supreme Court. Without a ruling on the issue of who really owned the vehicle, I could not be charged or convicted of violating the rules of the owner of the vehicle.

As you can see the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted my appeal and notified all parties. The document is listed as lsc_pleadings-filed-1-24-07.jpg. Let's look at this document from a legal perspective. The first thing to notice is that they gave the pleading a case number of 2007-KH-131. They mentioned when they received it and when it was postmarked. This is all straight forward. The most important things to notice is located at the bottom of the page when they enumerate who got a copy of the filing of the pleading.

The first one mentioned is the trial judge. The second one they noticed is the district attorney. The third one noticed is the Clerk of that court. The forth one they noticed is the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana. This is required by law because an article of the Louisiana State Constitution has been challenged. It is his job to defend the Louisiana State Constitution. Then they mentioned the three cases to which the pleading refers. This will all become extremely important when I show you how they started to cover this up.

The first thing that the Louisiana Supreme Court did was try to move the case to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana. This would have been one of the normal courses of appeal for a citizen of the United States. Remember, I had realized that First Parish Court was a federal admiralty court and under United States Code 1251 you had to be a Citizen of another State or an alien. Well, if they transferred it to the 5^th circuit and I didn't object then I would have been a Citizen of another State or an alien. Remember the appeal trap I told you about earlier? Here it is coming again. The only difference this time is that I had found the trap on the 2^nd day of March and the Louisiana Supreme Court tried to move the case to the 5^th Circuit on the 5^th day of March.

So, I objected to the Louisiana Supreme Court to the transfer of Jurisdiction. Remember, I can't object to the 5^th Circuit court because I am claiming to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and as such I have no business even talking to a federal court. To talk to them is to confer jurisdiction. Besides, this is a challenge to the validity of the Louisiana State Constitution. The 5^th circuit court, a federal court, can't rule on the validity of the Louisiana Constitution. Only the Louisiana Supreme Court or the Untied States Supreme Court can rule on the validity of the Louisiana State Constitution. You will see more of this later as the plot sickens.

Well, I try never to let grass grow under my feet in the middle of a court battle. I had mailed my objection to the Louisiana Supreme Court on the 12^th of March. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled on the very same day. So, our paperwork passed in the mail.

The Fifth Circuit court of Appeal did, without comment, deny my stay and writ. They did say that I was looking for the return of my vehicle and that was beyond their jurisdiction. Of course the return of my vehicle was beyond their jurisdiction. Unless the Louisiana Supreme Court rules that the theft of all vehicles by Article VII section 5 is indeed unconstitutional it is presumed to be constitutional and the State does indeed own the vehicle. A federal court can not order the State to return the vehicle. It is beyond their jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal would have had to certify a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Of course, they didn't do that.

Let me take a moment and explain the difference between a writ and an appeal. Basically a request for a writ of any kind is a request to the court for them to do you a favor. You have no right to have a writ heard. You have a right to have an appeal heard. The courts can deny a writ at whim. It was another technical error on my part. My appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court was entitled a Writ of error and/or appeal. I will never make that mistake again. But, in this case, the question had still not been answered and as you will see I objected to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit State of Louisiana. I had gotten smarter by this time.

I did object to the transfer of jurisdiction for two main reasons. In the first place I am claiming to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and therefore have no business in a federal court. In the second place the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana can not effect a remedy. They have no power to rule on whether an article of a State Constitution is constitutional or not. To appeal to the federal court is a waste of time. The only thing that the court of Appeal can do is ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a ruling on the issue by a certified question.

While we are on the subject let me point out the obvious. It is called the Court of Appeal, not the court of Writ. If you ask any lawyer they will tell you that you have to approach the court with a writ. Usually a writ of certiorari. Trust me, they know that a writ can be denied without reason or justification. After all, you are asking the court for a favor, not demanding a right of appeal. In Law, as in most things, but especially in Law words have exact meanings. The study of Law is the study of the precision use of language. Obviously the study of the law and the precision use of language is not important enough to be taught in school.

In response to my objection to the transfer of Jurisdiction, the central staff of the Louisiana Supreme Court did send me what appears to be a form letter. The implication is that they are telling me that, as an ignorant non lawyer, I am just confused. Such is not the case. I am exactly right and I will prove it to you as we go on.

In Law, you always have a right, nay, a duty to object when something is being done which you believe is wrong. Failure to object is fatal. The courts have a duty to rule on the objection. It is their job. What they are doing is trying to keep my objection out of the official record of the case by returning it to me. Notice the form letter. They have stated that I sent them a letter, not an objection. Also notice that it would have been easier to draft this from scratch. How many people do you think call the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit a United States Court of Appeal. They are trying to convince me that I must declare myself a citizen of the United States by appearing in the federal court under United States Code 1251.

I did return my objection to the transfer of jurisdiction in an objection to the return of legally filed documents in which I did object to what can only be called a ruling on my objection. My objection was overruled not by a judge, but by the central staff. They don't have the power nor the right to rule on my objection. The Louisiana Supreme Court is trying to corrupt the official record of the case by trying to keep my objection out of the official record. Trust me, I have been bitten by a corruption of the record before.

I also started to demand summary judgment. To the date of the creation of this discourse, no one has contested my allegations. However, at the time I started to wonder why the Attorney General had not answered the challenge, after all, it is his job. So I started to dig again. What I found was another fatal flaw of the whole system.

I started to look at the qualifications to be a Governor and Attorney General. What I found is that it is illegal for a Citizen of the State to hold any elective office in the State of Louisiana. This would only make sense if it were impossible to be a Citizen of the State. Do you remember the Slaughterhouses Cases? In the Slaughterhouse cases the justices said that a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States were distinct from each other and to be a Citizen of a State there were only two requirements. You had to want to be a Citizen of a State and you had to have a bona fide residence in the State. The exact quote is:

"One of these privileges is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."

Do you remember that I told you that I couldn't prove by direct evidence that it was impossible to become a Citizen of the State any longer, but could only prove it by indirect evidence? Well, here comes the indirect evidence.

In Louisiana, the qualifications for any statewide elective office is stated in Article IV section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution. It says that you must "have been a citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the preceding five years." What is this? You must have been a citizen of the United States and of this state for the preceding five years.

Didn't the Slaughterhouse cases tell us that a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State were distinct form each other? You can't be both. The United States Supreme Court told us so.

Let's go back a step to the Dred Scott case. You know Scott v. Sandford. It was decided before the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court told us then that "a citizen of one State has no right to participate in the government of another."

Then, it must be impossible to be a Citizen of a State. There is no other explanation of the change in the Louisiana State Constitution. Do you think that this is just Louisiana? Go and look in your State Constitution. You will find the same wording.

Remember, there are only two criteria to become a Citizen of a State. You have to want to and you have to have a bona fide residence in that State. Also remember, that a citizen of one State has no right to participate in the government of another State.

Also, remember Hans. The United States Supreme Court told him that a citizen of another State or an alien could not sue the State of Louisiana. He thought that he was a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. The United States Supreme Court knew differently. Is it any wonder that the basics of Law are not taught in high school? Is it any wonder that the basics of Law are not taught in college until the doctoral level? Is it any wonder that what you believe are your rights make no sense considering what you can see going on around you.

In the beginning of this I told you that they had even stolen your children. At the time I am putting this together, the news is full of the religious community in Texas that had all of their children taken from them. It is the same as if the government had gone into any small community and taken all of the children. Remember, there is no proof. There is just an allegation by an anonymous phone call that started all of this. Remember the old adage, If they can take it from you, you do not own it. Where was the due process of Law? Where is innocent until proven guilty. They don't even know who made the phone call. Plus, there was only one phone call. Surely, all of those people were not the parents of the one the caller fingered. We don't even know if any of those people were the parents of the one caller referenced. We don't know who the caller was. Could it have been a prank call? Are you starting to get the idea. Once before we rounded up religious people and burned them. They were called Jews. How dare they be religious. But then again, those people are polygamists, they dress oddly, I am not one of them. It can't happen to me.

The United States of America has been overthrown with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment raised the African American up from Nigger, but not by much. Then they made us all African Americans. Isn't it time we raised us all up from African American to Men created equally. Yes, even that special class of men known as WOmen. If you don't think that it can get any worse, stay with me, it will. But, again, I digress. Let's get back to the cases.

Now, I am demanding summary judgment. For those of you who don't know, let me explain summary judgment. If you were to bring someone into court for any reason, the person you brought into court has a right to defend himself against the charges brought against them. If they refuse to appear or refuse to defend themselves, then you have a right to demand that the case be decided in your favor. You have a right to demand that the charges brought must be true because the person your are attacking has refused, or can't, defend himself against the charges. He must be guilty of what you have charged because if he were innocent, he would have said so. Hence, he must be guilty and you have a right to a ruling. This is summary judgment. If he were innocent, he would have defended himself.

I have charged that the State of Louisiana has illegally stolen my vehicle. I have charged that the State of Louisiana has illegally brought me into court. I have charged that the Department of Public Safety and Correction is knowingly enforcing invalid liens and destroying peoples lives for money. Even to the date of the construction of this information to the general public, the State of Louisiana has refused to defend itself against these charges.

I now knew why the Attorney General had not answered any of my charges and defended the Louisiana State Constitution. After all, it is his job. He had been notified or in legalese, he had been served. There can be only one explanation. As a citizen of another State or an alien, he has no right to appear in the Louisiana Supreme Court. Also, there is no defense to my claims because my claims are exactly correct.

Do you remember that I had three cases that had been stayed by the lower court within minutes of the start of an arraignment on a case on the same issues? Well, I filed an appeal on that case too. This new appeal is on the docket of the Louisiana Supreme Court as 2007-KH-866. The case complained of is F1681551.

Here is where the problems for the Louisiana Supreme Court get worse. This time I am attacking the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the actual complainant. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a Corporation with the power to sue and be sued. This was done to remove the problem of suing a State. Remember Hans? At this point I still don't know about Hans v. the State of Louisiana.

Again, I went directly from the First Parish Court to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Look at the acknowledgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court of the filling of the appeal.

Again the text looks standard. They told all parties when it was postmarked, when it was received and tell all parties that it bears the above mentioned docket number.

But look at the bottom. They noticed the attorney general. They noticed the judge from the last Appeal, not the judge from this appeal. In case F1681551 Joseph Responti presided. They noticed a judge of the 24^th Judicial District Court Div. "G". I have never been in the 24^th Judicial District Court Div. "G". They noticed the clerk of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. They noticed the clerk of the First Parish Court. They noticed a prosecutor who handles appeals for the District Attorney's office. Then they mentioned the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit and the case number of the case that the Louisiana Supreme Court had transferred jurisdiction in the last case. Then they mentioned the 24^th Judicial District Court Div. "G" where I have never appeared, ever, and the case numbers of the cases in the last appeal. You know the one Docketed as 2007- KH-131. Now, notice that the case complained of is F1681551. It is missing. Why would this be? It is obvious. They have constructed a totally fictitious chain of appeal and case F1681551 does not fit in. Why would they do this? They did this for two reasons. The first is that this chain of appeal makes it appear that I have declared myself to be a citizen of another State or an alien, by appearing as such in those courts. The second reason is that, if I were to take this to the United States Supreme Court, the Louisiana Supreme Court could hide under Article IV section 1 of the United States Constitution which mandates that the United States Supreme Court believe the Louisiana Supreme Court. It says that "Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceeding of every other State." Hence, they can lie and the United States Supreme Court has to, by law, believe them.

Of course, I objected. Look at the paperwork. You tell me who is lying. Are they actively trying to hide the truth? Of course they are. I had also found out that legally filed documents were not appearing in the official record of the case, and I was complaining about that too.

Well, I started digging again. Again, the Attorney General was not doing his job and defending the Louisiana State Constitution. The record was being intentionally corrupted. What could I do?

I found a provision in the rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court that allows people to file motions in open court before the first case is called. So that is what I did. I dressed for the occasion in my coat and tie and I went down there on one day and I filed a motion for summary judgment in open court on case numbered 131. On the next day I again went down to the Louisiana Supreme court, again in appropriate attire, and filed a motion for summary judgment on the second case numbered 866. On the third day I again went to the Louisiana Supreme Court and was going to file another motion, in open court, for the return of my vehicle until such time as the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on just who owned the vehicle. This time I told the clerk, as is appropriate, that this motion I was going to argue about. It is not considered in good form to embarrass the Judges and, as is appropriate, I was always on my best behavior.

What happened next surprised even me. The clerk had disappeared to talk to the judges. When he came back I was told that I must leave the building. There was no reason given. I had always been on my best behavior, well dressed, polite and even submissive. Yet, I was bodily grabbed by the court officers and escorted out of the back door of the court. Quite honestly, I was honored. I had beaten them. The highest and best action available to the court was to throw me out in violation of their own rules. No, I can't prove this to you directly. I would have to subpoena the clerk and the officers. By this time I was finished with the Louisiana Supreme Court. I was going to try to go to the Untied States Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction. I still didn't know about Hans.

On the 7^th of June, 2007 I got a letter from the Louisiana Supreme Court. It was "to advise me that the Court took the following action on the Motion for Adjudgment on the Uncontested Facts that Article VII Sec. 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution and The Adjudgment that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Be Dissolved filed in the above entitled matter: The motion for summary judgment is referred to the merits of the application." In plain English it means that they will think about it and decide later. To someone who has fought in court for a while, it means we will decide when pigs fly. To the date of the construction of this, pigs haven't learned to fly yet.

I did finally force the Louisiana Supreme Court to do something on my demands for summary judgment. They decided to not give me summary judgment. They decided not to decide. Remember, to date, no one has responded.

Now remember, I have proved that the State of Louisiana is arresting people, fining people, putting people in jail, stealing people's vehicles and it is all illegal. Yet, it's still going on. If I were wrong, how easy would it have been to just say so. It is because I am not wrong that they won't rule. I am dead on correct. That's why they won't rule. All you have to do is read the Brief in support of my claims to know that I am right. All I did was translate Article VII Section 5 from Legalese into plain English.

It is the same with my claim that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is illegally instituted. Again, all you have to do is read the Brief in Support to know that, again, I am dead on correct. Yet, the abuses continue. Now, you tell me. Are the Lawyers actively hiding the truth from you?

Now, the question remains, why hasn't the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled. They could say that I was right or they could have said that I was wrong. Surely they know if I am right or wrong. It is their job. If they rule, I can appeal to the United States Supreme Court. As long as they don't say anything, we are stalled.

As I said, I was going to take this to the United States Supreme Court under their original jurisdiction. You will find the justification in Article III Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. At the time I was still calling it the Supreme Court of the United States. I will show you why I have changed as we go on.

I can't appeal the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court because they have made no decision. Also, under the full faith and credit provision of the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court is required to believe the Louisiana Supreme Court whether they are lying or not. Remember, that's contained in Article IV section 1 of the United States Constitution. Since the Louisiana Supreme Court has doctored the record, I will loose. The United States Supreme Court will say something like: On the face of the record the Appellant is wrong. Been there, done that.

Anyone who has fought in the Courts for a while and has been right knows that the Courts will hide the case as they have done this time too. Did I really expect them to rule in my favor? No, not really. There was always a hope, but I really didn't expect it. I also hope to win the lottery although I don't usually by a ticket. I also hope to find Aladin's lamp, but I don't expect that either. Then, why have I put myself through this trouble and aggravation? Quite honestly, I did it to amass this proof. I always knew that I would have to take my case to the people as I am doing now. But without the proof, who would believe me? It is hard enough to believe me with the proof. Without the proof, I am just a crazy person ranting. Who would believe me if I told them that all of the Lawyers are in cahoots and that they were actively hiding the information. I needed to be able to prove it. After all, is it any harder to believe lawyers than Masons, Jews, Muslims, or politicians. Every time they cheated I just smiled, documented it and added the explanation of the misdeed in plain English to the next piece of paperwork. I always knew that I would have to explain all of this to a population totally ignorant of the basics of Law. In fact, the paperwork I have submitted was intentionally written to be read by a population not only ignorant of Law, but a population that doesn't read anymore and surely wouldn't read it if I wrote it in legalese. Besides, if I could stump the courts I knew that I had finally gotten all the pieces correctly put together. Then, I could take it to the people. It has been over four years and they still can't get me to trial, yet my vehicle is still gone and probably sold by now to another surf in the master's herd. Don't just believe me or write me off, go see for yourself. It takes less time than you think. But, lets get back to court.

Remember, on June 7^th, 2007 the Louisiana Supreme Court said that they were going to decide on uncontested facts. Remember, neither the Attorney General nor anyone else answered. The District Attorney didn't answer, Nobody answered to say that anything I said was wrong. Even the Louisiana Supreme Court hasn't said I am wrong. How hard would it have been to just prove the flaw in my argument and just rule against me. They are lawyers. The District Attorney prosecutes people every day. Doesn't he know the legal justification for taking your money and time? The Attorney General, isn't that what we pay him for? It is required that he receive service of all documents. Surely he knows the flaw in my arguments, it's his job. Yet, all I get is silence. How many people have been prosecuted since June 7^th, 2007?

I have prepared paperwork that is almost a fill in the blank type of paperwork. In Legalese it's called boilerplate, I think. In Louisiana, it will get you out of any traffic ticket. Basically it says that until the Louisiana Supreme Court rules on who is the owner of this vehicle, you have no right to bring anyone into court claiming that the rules of the owner of the vehicle has been violated.

It also claims that until the Louisiana Supreme Court rules on the right to exist of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, it's minions, whatever policeman gave you the ticket had no right to even stop you. He is just acting as agent for the overseer of the State's property. If the overseer has no right to exist, than the agent had no right to act on the overseer's behalf.

Want to beat some other charge? I have paperwork for that too.

All paperwork is to be used at your own risk. Act like a King and make sure that you know what you are doing. Then go and claim your Kingdom. With great power comes great responsibility. Accept both and we'll all claim our kingdoms.

Kings know how to defend themselves. They teach the princes how to defend themselves too. It is the history of Earth. If you can't defend it, some one will steal it from you. If you don't know how to defend your rights in court, lawyers will steal them from you. I've spent all of this time trying to prove it to you. Ignorance is Slavery.

Well, I decided that as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana I had a right under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is still an uncontested fact. I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and they have violated the contracts that we, the People, had made.

Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution says in the second paragraph that if a State is a party the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other cases it shall have appellate jurisdiction.

I went and told the Supreme Court of the United States that the State of Louisiana had been overthrown by those citizens of the United States that you said were clearly and distinctively different from Citizens of the State of Louisiana and that they made it impossible for a Citizen of the State of Louisiana to hold public office. I told the Supreme Court of the United States that these citizens of the United States had stolen all of the vehicles in the State and won't let me go anywhere further than I can walk unless I pay them to let me use my vehicle and promise to obey their rules. When I refused they stole my vehicle and took me into court and now the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest court in the State, refuses to rule on uncontested facts. And, here's the proof. I have had my property taken without due process of law. I have been illegally imprisoned and unless this court rules on who owns this vehicle I can't even escape if another hurricane hits. I was being denied every right that you said that a Citizen of the State has a right to and our governments were instituted to protect.

I told them that only two courts in the United States could rule on the the Constitution of the State of Louisiana. One was the Louisiana Supreme Court and that they were cheating to hide the information. And, here's the proof. The other is the United States Supreme Court, and only they can rule on the validity of the Constitution of the United States and its restrictions on States hence, here I am. And, here are the legal reasons that I believe that I have a right to be here.

Pretty serious charges don't you think? I gave them proof that I had gone to the Louisiana Supreme Court and that they were cheating if, by no other means than a refusal to rule on who owned the car I claimed I owned. If I owned my car than the State is cheating people every day you delay. And, here's the proof. I told them that I had even gone before the Louisiana Supreme Court in open session and filed a demand that they rule. How hard can that be. Surely the judges of the Louisiana Supreme Court know who owns the vehicle. Why won't they just say so.

I got my paperwork back with a letter from the clerk of Court. The clerk told me that these papers failed to comply with the rules of the court, but didn't tell me which rules I failed to comply with.

The clerk also told me that I had to file a writ of certiorari. I can't file a writ of any kind. The hearing of a writ is not a right. If it is not a right then they are doing you a favor. I don't want you to do me a favor. A writ can be denied for any reason or no reason. I am demanding that I be afforded the right to appear before my government for redress of grievance as guaranteed by Article I of the Bill of Rights. I have a right to an appeal.

I can't file a writ, because I am claiming that this is done under the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. I can't file an appeal or a writ of any kind because the corrupt Louisiana Supreme Court refuses to rule at all. Except, possibly, under the theory that to take no action is an action. It's one of the three feasances, malfeasances, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. In this case it is all three, depending on your point of view.

The clerk also told me that my case must first be reviewed by a United States court of Appeals or by the highest state court in which a decision could be had. Isn't that what I was doing? I had been to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest state court in which a decision could be had. They had reviewed the case and had taken the action of taking no action to the detriment of myself and all of the other State Citizens they were also abusing. They were even engaging in acts of fraud to hide the ugly truth.

One other curious point. Legalese is the study of the precision use of language. Each word has a very particular meaning. In legalese there is a difference between reviewing a case and deciding a case. In the current instance, the Louisiana Supreme Court has reviewed a case but has decided to refuse to decide. The lien on the vehicle is still good until they say that it isn't. If they never say, they can keep right on stealing people's money and time and keep right on destroying lives.

There is an old saying: "To take no action is an action."

To make matters worse, I had proven by the Louisiana State Constitution that the justices of the Louisiana State Supreme Court were not Citizens of the State of Louisiana. They were citizens of the United States and, therefore, they had no right to hold a Louisiana State Office. Since the justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court had no right to be sitting on the bench in the first place, they had no right to decide. They had reviewed the case, though.

I did the only thing that I could do. I objected to the actions of the Clerk of Court.

I explained that I had, to the best of my ability and in great haste, prepared the documents following the rules of the court. I even gave examples. I also explained how my vehicle had been stolen and I had no way to evacuate in a disaster, hence, my life was at stake.

I even showed him the rules of the Supreme Court that states that I should be allowed to file despite defects. I even showed him the federal rules that say virtually the same thing.

I then asked that I be told exactly which rule I had violated that, in accordance with the federal rules of procedure, was so terrible that I substantially affected the rights of the other parties.

The federal rules of civil procedure rule 61 says:

"The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 61

Yes, there is one for criminal procedure too.

Well, they sent that back to me too with a cover letter. This time the clerk told me that the original jurisdiction does not extend to a suit by an individual against a States and cited Hans v. Louisiana. Remember Hans?

The second letter said that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not extend to a suit by an individual against a State. It also cites 28 U.S.C. 1251 and Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules. Then they cite the eleventh amendment of the Constitution and Hans v. Louisiana. This is where I found out about Hans.

I objected again. This time I sent a certified letter to the clerk telling him that he was violating my rights and demanding a judicial determination on the unnamed defect or I was considering suing him. I attached this as an exhibit to the second objection and returned everything.

Let's have a little review. The Supreme Court said in the Slaughterhouse cases that there were two classes of citizenship. There is a Citizen of a State which had all of the rights that are your birthright and now, because of the Fourteenth Amendment there is also a citizen of the United States which have the rights befitting an African American, almost none. But, if you want to change your citizenship all you have to do now is have a bona fide residence in the State. Oh, by the way, your birthright has been stolen until such time as you get a bona fide residence in the State. Now you are born African American with almost no rights where before you were born a Citizen of the State you were born in, a King. Don't forget that the Supreme Court told the Butchers that they had inadvertently declared themselves citizens of the United States and they were going to be treated as an African American whether they were one or not.

OK, now they are citing U.S.C 1251 which is titled Original jurisdiction. In (a) it says that "The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States." The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more states. We could have fought the civil war here. Sure would have been less painful. But, this is not two States so it doesn't apply here. So section (a) is out.

United States Code 1251 says in (b) that the Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction of the following things. So, what they are telling you is that they have changed the constitution. The Constitution says original jurisdiction but doesn't say anything about exclusive, so we are going to start another branch of courts with this loophole.

Don't think that they were exploiting a loophole? Look at Article V Section 5 (B) of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled Original Jurisdiction. "The supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar." Notice that they have given themselves exclusive and original jurisdiction. No one but the Supreme court of Louisiana can try a case against a lawyer. It's good to be hooked up.

Our founding fathers said that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. That means the case starts there. But they didn't specifically mention exclusive jurisdiction. So Congress created a whole second court system for the citizens of the United States.

Can they do that? Article III section 1 of the Constitution says that congress can ordain and establish inferior courts from time to time. Scott v Sandford goes into the types of courts and almost unlimited power the federal government has in the territories and that was before we all became subjects of the Federal Government as citizens of the United State.

Well, subsection (1) says that the ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states can now go to this other branch of courts. I haven't claimed to be one of those people. Section (b)(1) is out.

Section (b)(2) is for controversies between the United States and a State. Gee, what happened to the State Sovereignty that the Supreme Court talks about in Hans. Now, a State can be sued by the Federal Government somewhere other than the Supreme Court. But, I am neither the State or the United States. So, (b)(2) is out.

The last one is (b)(3). This new branch of courts will handle all actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens. I am none of the above, so they must be telling me that I am a citizen of another States or I must be an alien.

Isn't that what a major portion of the controversy is about. It is still an uncontested fact that I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. I am not a citizen of another State or an alien. I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. In accordance with the Slaughterhouse cases I do claim that of my own volition I have wanted to become one and I have a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana. If the fourteenth Amendment is declared unconstitutional then I was born a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. I have even gone as far as to demand that if anyone can claim that I am not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana entitled to all the rights of a Citizen of the State of Louisiana let them bring their claim forward so that I may refute it. To date no one has come forward. Why not?

If I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana with rights, then United States Code 1251 does not apply to me. I am not a Citizen of another State or an Alien. If you think I am. Prove it. The burden of proof is on the State to prove that I am a Citizen of another State or an Alien and that they have a right to bring me into this court.

Remember the Slaughterhouse Cases? The United States Supreme Court said that to be a Citizen of a State, because now you are no longer born one, you have to want to and you have to have a bona fide residence in the State. Yet, a mere clerk can tell me that I am a Citizen of another State or an alien.

Well, no one has even mentioned one of the other States. No one has claimed I was from Mississippi, Alabama or even New York. There either must be another state or I am an alien. If I were a citizen of the United States I would be an alien on State soil. Or, at least, the soil the State manages for the new King. I would not be a Citizen of any State. I would be a citizen of the United States. Remember, they are clear and distinct from each other. You can't be both.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. I have claimed to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and no one has come forward and even claimed I wasn't one. Much less prove it. All I have to do is want to and claim a bona fide residence. A residence is not even as restrictive as a domicile. Yet, the clerk claims that I am a freed slave. It must be impossible to claim a bona fide residence in a State. Then, no matter how much you want to, you just can't get the rights that are your birthright and gifts from the Creator himself. The same rights that this country was set up to protect.

It is the same with the Eleventh Amendment and Hans v. Louisiana. The Eleventh Amendment deals with Citizens of another State or Subjects of any Foreign State. I don't claim to be a Citizen of another State. I claim to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Therefore, they must be claiming that I am a SUBJECT of a foreign State. I must be a citizen of the United States. Remember, clear and distinct from each other. You can't be both. The United States Supreme Court Said So.

In fact a subject of a foreign state is pretty accurate. Read Scott v. Sandford, you know the Dred Scott Case. There the United States Supreme Court talks about the almost tyrannical power of the United States over its subjects, as managers of the Kings.

I objected yet a third time complete with a second demand letter to the Clerk. This time they sent me a copy of the original no jurisdiction letter and covered it with a letter telling me that they regret that the Supreme Court can not assist me in this matter. So much for redress of grievance.

Well, you can only go so far objecting to the rulings of the Clerk of Court. So I sent an emergency appeal to Justice Scalia. It got sent back too. With copies of the last two letters.

Then I deduced that if all of the land had been alienated, then a bona fide residence in a State is impossible. I will die not a free Citizen of the State of Louisiana but a subject and a mere citizen of the United States, a freed slave.

Well, I went to digging again. I came up with a Scire Facias complaint. It basically says that the people that alienated the land had no legal right to alienate the land. Since the Fourteenth Amendment tied our right to be a Citizen of the State to a bona fide residence, you could not alienate the land without alienating our rights. Hence, the alienation of land was illegal and I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. I do have a right to come into the United States Supreme Court.

Do you remember a few minutes ago I told you that congress had created a whole new court system and showed you Article 1251 of the United States Code. I started to wonder. Could Congress have created a court called the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in their court system. They are claiming that I am a citizen of the United States. After all, we don't call it the Army of the United States. It is the United States Army. Maybe I am addressing the highest court in the Congressional system and not the highest court in the Constitutional system. After all, First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana is not a State Court. It must be a federal admiralty court for the federal courts have jurisdiction over admiralty cases and the vehicles were stolen with an admiralty lien.

It's the same with the Appeal Courts, like the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana is in reality a federal admiralty court. It makes sense, this is an admiralty case in the lower court, it must be an admiralty case in the appeal court. Also, the clerk of the Louisiana Supreme court, when he fabricated the factious chain of appeal, added the 24^th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana. It must be a federal Admiralty court too. In fact, the only Louisiana State Court I can find is the Louisiana Supreme Court. To have gone to any one of those courts would have been admitting to be a citizen of the United States, for who else would claim a right to go to that court but a citizen of the United States. Remember the butchers in Slaughterhouse? They claimed a right under the 14^th Amendment and, since it was written for the African Americans who were now citizens of the United States, the butchers would be treated as African Americans. I couldn't make this stuff up. Go see for yourself. The United States Supreme Court says so.

You will see in my paperwork that I start calling the court the Supreme Court of the United States with an asterisk saying that it was meant to be construed as the same Supreme Court of the Constitution and referenced by Publius in the Federalist Papers. I later changed to the United States Supreme Court.

One more point about appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court I think is the highest court that congress has created and different from the United States Supreme Court that the Constitution Created.

By the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States in order to submit any paperwork instituting an action it must be preceded by a motion for leave to file. This sounded odd to me. I looked it up in a legal dictionary. If you motion the court for leave to file you are conferring jurisdiction. You wouldn't ask a court that doesn't have jurisdiction to do something. You are asking the court for permission to file. I am claiming that I have a right to file. I don't need permission.

Do you remember the trap of appealing to the circuit court. You have to be a citizen of another state or a citizen of a foreign state to appear in a federal court. If you appeal to a federal court than you are in the same boat with the butchers. You must be a freed slave, you went to a freed slave court.

Well, I had been fooled by all of the federal courts with State of Louisiana in their name, I wasn't going to take any chances. But, if I don't have a motion for leave to file the clerk will return it. What to do?

I came up with a solution. I made a motion to file in forma pauperis. I made a motion that I be allowed to proceed as a pauper. I couldn't afford to pay the filing fees and other court costs. This gave the Clerk the motion for leave to file, but it did not confer jurisdiction. I wasn't asking for permission to file. I had a right to do that. I was asking for permission to file without paying the filing fee. Now, the only jurisdiction conferred is found in the jurisdictional statement. If I am a Ciitzen of the State of Louisiana and the Supreme Court of the United States is a congressional court, then they have no jurisdiction and have to say so. I haven't given them jurisdiction. If it is the same Supreme Court referenced in the Constitution, then I am still correct.

Well, the Scire Facias complaint. Was returned with copies of the last two letters.

This is where everything sits at the time I am putting all of this together for you. The Louisiana Supreme Court has denied my appeal by calling it a writ. Remember that they have illegally combined the cases. The case numbered 2007-KH-866 is an appeal and now they are calling it a writ, a favor that they can deny without reason, which they did.

Currently, I have been served notice by mail and by personal service that four trials will be held on October 28^th 2008. I can not appeal the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court because the record is a fraud and under the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Supreme Court will deny anything I can submit. Surely the lawyers on the Louisiana Supreme Court wouldn't lie. Lawyers are such honorable people.

You can see for yourself that the illegally combined cases which are now under the ruling in case numbered 2007-KH-866 still exclude the First Parish Case numbered F1681551. It is the case in First Parish Court that was complained of in 2007-KH-866 because it does not match their act of fraud.

I have submitted a demand for the trials in these cases to be extended so that I may have time to prepare for each trial separately (f1523230, f1525159, f1678532, f1681551.) To date, these demands have been ignored. So I must prepare to have four lynchings on the same date and time with every likelihood that I will be sent to prison for the crime of being right. By now, it should be obvious to you.

I have also submitted a formal accusation of treason, attempted murder and theft in each of these cases. (f1523230, f1525159, f1678532, f1681551.) Tell it to the Hans.

I now submit my plight to you, the once Sovereign Citizens of the States now reduced to freed slaves, citizens of the United States.

Now that you know what's wrong with this country, why nothing seems to make sense between what you believe to be your rights the question becomes: Are you going to allow this to continue or are you going to do something about it? I regret I could not write more but time is short and my incarceration seems imminent. To take no action is an action. To take no action means that you like the direction this country is going.

Don't count me out yet. I still have an ace or two to pull out of my sleeve. I will try to keep the web site updated as developments unfold. Assuming I am not in jail.

The Louisiana Supreme Court knows that the State of Louisiana has an illegal lien on your vehicle. The Louisiana Supreme Court knows that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has been illegally instituted and is enforcing invalid liens. The former governor of the State of Louisiana Ms. Blanco and the current governor of the State of Louisiana also know. The same with the Attorney Generals, and the heads of the Department of Safety and Corrections. I was required to supply all of them with copies of the documentation I was submitting to the courts.

Everyone knows that the Governor, the Attorney General, the legislatures and the judges are all citizens of another state or citizens of a foreign state and have no business meddling in the affairs of the State of Louisiana. These are invaders of a foreign state and co-conspirators with the band of conspirators that originally overthrew the United States.

The esquires and king know that the birthright of all Americans to be born Kings has been stolen. Yet, as long as they can keep everyone from knowing, the overthrow on America will continue. It's good to be hooked up as esquires of the King.

Here's the basic line of defense for almost any offense.

In Louisiana I have already done the first step for you. The are referenced as cases 2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866.

For the other States, first you have to find out where the State stole your vehicles. It probably won't be too different from how Louisiana stole ours.

Than you have to get the issue before your State's Supreme Court. This isn't too difficult even if there isn't an obvious way to do it. Only the Supreme Court of a State can rule on the validity of any section of a State's constitution. No other court can do it. No other court can effect a remedy. Therefore, you can't be expected to waste your time before a court that can't rule one way or another. It is a principle of Law. Contrary to the way courts are run for the freed slaves, courts are not allowed to waste the time of a King, their employer.

The Supreme Court in your State will not rule. Just like they are doing in Louisiana.

Now you are in the same position as the people in Louisiana. Until the Louisiana Supreme Court rules on who owns the vehicle, you can't bring me to court saying that I violated the rules of the owner of the vehicle.

The other approach is to claim that you are a Citizen of the State, unrepresented and your interests uncared for. That Citizens of another state or of a foreign State have invaded your State and have conquered your State.

This invading army has not only invaded your State, but they have taken over all of the State Government. They have stolen your vehicles and thereby, your right to travel. They have stolen your land. They have even stolen your body and the body of your children. They have stolen the unalienable right of the Kings and reduced the Kings to the character of freed slaves.

In fact, there has not been one valid law written since the overthrow of the State. Even if the 14^th amendment were declared legally adopted, with the loss of the land went the loss of my rights including my right to even complain. Hence, any alienation of land was illegal.

If the alienation of land was illegal then I have a bona fide residence in the State and I am therefore a Citizen of the States with the character of King.

As a citizen of the State, the State has no right to bring me before a federal court as an alien. This court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Since the State is bringing charges against you. It is their burden to prove that they have a right to bring charges against you. You made an issue out of it just like the Supreme Court told you to.

To prove that they have a right to bring charges against you they have to prove that you are not a citizen of the State. They have to prove that you are a citizen of another State or an Alien.

The State has to prove just which it is. Are you a citizen of another State or are you an alien. Just what other state or foreign state do you claim that I am a citizen of and what proof do you have?

If I don't have a bona fide residence in the State. Why not? You can't alienate the land without alienating my rights which you don't own. Where rights are concerned there shall be no rule making or legislation that shall abrogate them. The Supreme Court said that in Miranda v. Arizona.

To top it off, there hasn't been one Citizen of the State that has written, proposed or ratified the constitution or laws of this State. They are all invalid. The citizens of the State are unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

There is not one Citizen of the State anywhere in any office of the State. These foreigners, these invaders have no business meddling in the government of this State.

The State has to prove that these citizens of another state or citizens of a foreign state have a right to hold office in the first place. As citizens of another state or a foreign state they are aliens too. They have no right to hold office and exclude Citizens of the State.

What right do these invaders claim that allow them to dethrone the kings and rule over them. It can only be the right of conquest expressly forbidden by the Constitution in Article 4 Section 4.

A conquest that the conspirators even confessed to.

The conspirators have stolen our right to be born a King. Then the conspirators stole our right to even become a King. The conspirators have stolen all of our property and our rights and have made us surfs on the land of the conquerors, the new kings. They have stolen the title to my property. A title I can trace all the way to my Creator. These conspirators and invaders have stolen the certificate of origin of my rights just as surly as Dred Scott's ancestors had their's stolen in Africa. I told you that you had more in common with Dred Scott than you would believe.

If the State tries to prove that they have a right to bring you into court, the only thing that they really can prove is that they don't have a right to bring you into court.

The State has to prove that the United States has been successfully overthrown in order to prove that they have a right to bring you into court. The overthrow of the United States is expressly forbidden by article 4 section 4 of the Constitution. To prove that they have a right to bring you into court they have to prove that they have no right to bring you into court.

The only reason that this continues is the ignorance of the American people. Knowledge cures ignorance every time. Copy this information and give it to someone else.

Please, check up on me. You don't know how much I wish I were wrong. Wishing doesn't make it so.

I've showed you that your birthright is to be born a King. I showed you that your right to be born a King was stolen. I showed you that your right to even be a King has been stolen. I've showed you the conspiracy of a rump congress to overthrow the nation. I showed you that the lawyer know what happened and are keeping it a secret to be able to pretend that this is what we really want. It's good to be the ruling class, esquires of the King. I've showed you that the Louisiana Supreme court is controlled by sworn associates of the original conspirators, as is the Governor, attorney general and legislatures. I've showed you that the Louisiana Supreme Court is refusing to rule and free the subject to reclaim their kingdom and that the United States Supreme court is helping them. All pretending that we really didn't want to be kings at all. We really wanted to be subjects of the new King and his esquires. After all, look at how well they've run this country... into the ground.

A government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

Look around. What you see around you proves I'm right. But, please check on me. You need to know the rules when we have to change them. Think of it, a legal system based on restitution instead of punishment. It's what we are supposed to have. As a King you have a right to do pretty much anything you want in your kingdom. If you injure another King or damage his kingdom, restitution is required, not punishment. You have to fix the damage by whatever means 12 fellow kings decide, within rules. The offense is against the other king, not the State. The judge does not decide. He's just the professional referee, the hired help. 12 kings decide. Your peers. All created equally. All Kings.

May God save the once Sovereign Citizens of these United States. But, God helps those who help themselves.